Obama: 'don't ask, don't tell'

[JayHawk]

Blah Blah Blah. Speculate all you want. he already said he would work with leaders in both congress and the military to ensure there is a consensus on the way forward. Do not presume to speculate on what is or is not a task he is willing to accomplish.

Is it easier now? Of course. Will it be easy with 36 states that have gay marriage bans? Nope not with that kind of sentiment. I always thought this would be a second term issue .

 

[NickCole]

You were against the bailout because it "could probably" not work.

I was against the bailout because it's a $700 Billion boondoggle.

You should be against this too, but you are against the Democratic Party for some reason.

I'm for this because I'm for gay rights.

And I think it is pathetic how you confuse HIV as a gay rights issue. Talk about buying the Westboro Church propoganda.

If you'd been there or bothered to know anything about one of the most pivotal events in gay history you'd know AIDS was a gay rights issue in the 1980s.

 

[NickCole]

^ Sounds like the pragmatic path to take.

Another pragmatic path to take would have been to not sit around fabricating reasons to justify hating the man and endeavored to campaign support for gay rights during the primary/election, instead of whining about missed opportunities after the fact, with your hand out. But our absolutist Nick, petty bitterness trumps opportunity.

I called on Obama to speak out on our behalf before the election, and criticized Obama's gay supporters before the election for not even asking him to stand with us, to urge his crowds to vote with us as we were voting for him.

I made this plain before the election, before Prop 8 passed, not "after the fact." Obama supporters argued with me about it back then. The conventional wisdom was that Prop 8 wouldn't pass; I knew it would if Obama didn't help.

 

[iman]

I think the time is ripe for having gays in the military. but the public has other concerns at the moment and does not want to read about Democrats pursuing and end to "don't ask" when the country is facing several crises.

The history of the civil rights movement should be instructive: the right moves should be made at the right time.

Nick, sometimes I think you may be losing your objectivity vis a vis Obama subjects. The man is better than many of his supporters.

 

[NickCole]

"It's about to be 2009, not 1993." Your words. Just words? HIV/AIDS is a public health issue that can infect people regardless of their status as gay. Outside of those at Westboro Church, who are happy to claim AIDS is their god's way to cure gay, people should have long since realized by now it's not 'GRID'.

You can be as ignorant as you want, it won't change history.

As I said, in the 1980s, AIDS was a gay rights issue and gays were the ones on the front lines fighting for, among other elements, research and services funding. The reason AIDS was being ignored is because it was connected to gays, long after it stopped being called GRID, and we didn't wait nicely until elected officials decided our cause wasn't too risky and it was our turn to tap into political capital.

 

[NickCole]

I think the time is ripe for having gays in the military. but the public has other concerns at the moment and does not want to read about Democrats pursuing and end to "don't ask" when the country is facing several crises.

I think you're wrong.

Another of his campaign promises Obama is going to break is he's not going to get us out of Iraq in 16 months. Our military is going to need more soldiers. I think DADT could be slipped through a Democratic Majority Congress with little fanfare and little resistance from Republicans. If Obama did it right away they wouldn't have time to gather a force against it like they did Prop 8, and with all the concern about the economy, and Iraq still needing more US soldiers, it might go through with more of a shrug than a scream while the news is buzzing with economic doom and Republicans are off in a corner licking their wounds from defeat.

The history of the civil rights movement should be instructive: the right moves should be made at the right time.

Exactly.

And you have to have an eye for timing.

Nick, sometimes I think you may be losing your objectivity vis a vis Obama subjects. The man is better than many of his supporters.

I've always said Obama puts on a great show. He's not even President yet. I'll wait until he's been in office a while before I judge how good he is at results.

 

[NickCole]

So you can claim I'm ignorant, recognizing it's 2009 and not 198x, but you can get away with claiming it's 2009, and not 1993, so don't learn anything from Clinton's defeat?

Christ.

Clinton was defeated on gays in the military in 1993, right on the heels of the 1980s and that decade-long fight we'd waged. AIDS/gays was still a raw issue. And we weren't at war anywhere; the nation's attitude about the military and the military's recruiting needs was very different then. The military, cultural, political climate wasn't right to push it through, then. The climate's different now on virtually every level.

 

[NickCole]

All you made plain was your hatred of the man and how you waffled over supporting McCain. Your post history will reflect that easily with many, many posts, will it just as easily reflect your claim, hm? They argued, as I've read through a few posts, that it wasn't worth losing the election for something that, as I've shown you with the math regarding Prop 8 turned out to be true, "could probably" not work.

I never hated Obama, I never supported McCain, and your "math" regarding Prop 8 was nonsense.

 

[JackFTwist]

Originally Posted by NickCole View Post
I never hated Obama,

fucking unreal

 

[NickCole]

So you claim but your post history proves otherwise,

I criticize Obama as a politician.

There's nothing personal about it and I have neither love nor hate for Obama or any other politician I don't know personally.

so you claim now but you never made that known prior to 11/4,

Prior to 11/4 I repeatedly stated I was not supporting McCain.

and so you claim but you never proved otherwise.

Because your post was stupid. There was no point. Your figures weren't even actual results, the official results hadn't been reported yet, they were estimates -- I believe by the AP. And in between all those estimated numbers were a bunch of guesses about what people might have done. You present that as "proof," which is utterly absurd. There was no point in "proving" otherwise because "what might have happened if" can't be proved.

 

[naked gent]

Nick, sometimes I think you may be losing your objectivity vis a vis Obama subjects. The man is better than many of his supporters.

I agree with you iman. I'm inclined to believe that were they to be judged by the standard Nick will use while judging a President Obama no president in that last 100 yrs would be considered a success.

 

[NickCole]

Nick: Prior to 11/4 I repeatedly stated I was not supporting McCain.

ICO7: Wow, so what's with all that "objectivity" you claimed to have during the time? Oh, that's right, it's just part of the stuff you make up and hope others forget.

I did not support either of the candidates, which may have made me the most objective poster here.

Oh wow. That's rich. You based your entire racist argument against blacks ON THOSE SAME FIGURES.

I never made a racist argument against blacks and I never cited the figures you cited.

Why are lying so much?

 

[archive]

Another of his campaign promises Obama is going to break is he's not going to get us out of Iraq in 16 months. Our military is going to need more soldiers. I think DADT could be slipped through a Democratic Majority Congress with little fanfare and little resistance from Republicans. If Obama did it right away they wouldn't have time to gather a force against it like they did Prop 8, and with all the concern about the economy, and Iraq still needing more US soldiers, it might go through with more of a shrug than a scream while the news is buzzing with economic doom and Republicans are off in a corner licking their wounds from defeat.

im not gonna get into the 16 months out of IRAQ because the SOFA agreement will probably be signed which has nothing to do with him....

but im all for DADT being repealed as it affects me directly..but this reasoning is just wrong...gays can already serve in the military....sure you have to "hide it" if one would like to call it that...but you can still serve...

if and when it gets repealed...i think a lot of people will be surprised...and outraged....its funny that people think military men are the most open people in the US...sure it will be a victory...but at what costs....and i still hang on to my firm belief (me and a couple of others i know)......that most gays just want it repealed in case a relationship is unearthed.....i dont think anyone in their right minds (unless higher ranked) would go around letting everyone know...youd be surprised.....homophobia is much worse in the military...so is every other -ism on that note